T Nation

Secret to Longevity ?

[quote]cyph31 wrote:
my question would be why would someone want to live past the age of 60 or 70
[/quote]

Why not lower that number to 27? Seriously though, it is a purely subjective valuation why anyone would want to live at all.

Older generations serve as the progenitors of culture in which the youth adapt to changing society. The longer one lives the more wisdom one can gain through experience – not that wisdom is a certainty of aging. There would, of course, be no point to living without good health and mental faculties.

I want to live forever.

[quote]X7502 wrote:
Could restricting your calories without leading to malnutrition increase your life expectancy ? some people might think so:

http://www.jyi.org/news/nb.php?id=624

What are you feelings on this ?[/quote]

My feelings are that this information probably doesn’t apply to me because researchers generally compare things like this to an “average population”. And I make daily efforts to not be a part of that population.

[quote]streamline wrote:
I don’t like the trade off, small and whimpy for a longer pathetic live. Or big and strong with a furfilling life. I take the latter of the two.

Having said that and the fact that 80% of my customer at seniors. I have never met a large elderly person. I don’t know any large individuals over seventy.

I have heard that it is believed that the heart can’t pump blood to an extra large person as long as it can for a small person. So it is best to keep that ticker in awesome shape.[/quote]

I just have to say that my grandfather is 86 and he’s a monster. (Huge, not fat.) He was 79 when my husband first met him and my husband (at 6 feet and 200 lbs) was in awe. He still gets around well enough to cut the grass on his 10 acres himelf every week, although he has slowed down a bit.

I think that there are just so many variables to determining life expectancy, and I agree with you that it’s better to aim for a fulfilling life than one that is merely long.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Regular masturbation and sex with a partner promote prostate health.[/quote]

Does this have to include the whole “sex with a partner” part too? Because if it does… :frowning:

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
streamline wrote:
I don’t like the trade off, small and whimpy for a longer pathetic live. Or big and strong with a furfilling life. I take the latter of the two.

Having said that and the fact that 80% of my customer at seniors. I have never met a large elderly person. I don’t know any large individuals over seventy.

I have heard that it is believed that the heart can’t pump blood to an extra large person as long as it can for a small person. So it is best to keep that ticker in awesome shape.

I just have to say that my grandfather is 86 and he’s a monster. (Huge, not fat.) He was 79 when my husband first met him and my husband (at 6 feet and 200 lbs) was in awe. He still gets around well enough to cut the grass on his 10 acres himelf every week, although he has slowed down a bit.

I think that there are just so many variables to determining life expectancy, and I agree with you that it’s better to aim for a fulfilling life than one that is merely long.[/quote]

Make sure he isnt using a self propelling lawn mower. We need to see if this guy is legit.

Lol!

Quality over quantity.

[quote]blazindave wrote:
Quality over quantity.[/quote]

but what if it were possible to have both?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
blazindave wrote:
Quality over quantity.

but what if it were possible to have both?[/quote]

Then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The people who really take this longevity angle to its extreme look sickly on a daily basis. These people won’t be defending themselves from any attackers…or hell, even surviving a minor car collision. That’s not quality.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In the animal world I think longer life spans are correlated to a low ratio of metabolic expenditure to body weight. The lower the number the higher the life expectancy.

Aging is a cellular phenomena and there is no reason why cells should have to age at all. With the right technology we could provide restorative capabilities to all of our cells; in fact, that is all that aging is – the inability for the body to restore its organs’ cells to a normal functioning capacity and number.

If we think about what a metabolism is we can understand how it might affect our cells’ recovery processes. More energy and nutrients can be devoted to cell regeneration if we are able to store more nutrients in a larger body. A slow metabolism would ensure that energy is being distributed to the organs as needed instead of being burned off as heat when we are in a sedentary state.

To echo the OP I think a high nutrient low-calorie diet would be effective in achieving a lower metabolism. Training with weights would ensure that our body mass remains dense so we can store those nutrients.

Also, I think one characteristic that is important to a longer life is the pace of life one has – meaning, are we always rushed and in a hurry to get to the next appointment; do we take time for ourselves to slow down and just relax? Being in a constant state of stress cannot be good in this regard.[/quote]

You make some good points. I’m not sure it will ever be possible to continually restore cells ad infinitum. Certainly, it will be possible to do so up to a point, which would be an improvement over today, but perhaps our bodies have a finite shutdown point at which time no more regeneration can take place. Kind of like a rechargeable battery. Can the earth actually sustain a population that doesn’t age?

DB

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]X7502 wrote:

What are you feelings on this ?[/quote]

Most of the significant studies have been done on monkeys.

The calorie restriction in my view is harsh,border lining on starvation.

The premise makes sense, it depends on trade offs.

I think I would split the difference.

[quote]X7502 wrote:
Could restricting your calories without leading to malnutrition increase your life expectancy ? some people might think so:

http://www.jyi.org/news/nb.php?id=624

What are you feelings on this ?[/quote]

This argument could be made for a large portion of the population that sits on their ass all day long and doesn’t exercise. For the users of this website, this article is irrelevant. Lift hard, eat well, and (as much as it sucks) don’t neglect the cardio. You will most likely outlive the experts, unless you genetics suck or your get hit by a bus…lol

Cell division is limited, so theorically speaking the more you destroy your body and force it to grow by overfeeding the faster you’ll run out of your limited cell division “credit”. You’ll wear out quicker. (telomere thing…)

The best way to extend longevity is caloric restriction, eating micronutrients dense foods and moderate exercising. The healthier and longer living old people I met never lifted weight nor did cardio training in their entire life. They just ate healthy traditionnal whole foods and did gardening in their backyard.

I don’t lift weight to extend my life, it won’t, I lift to get stronger, faster and bigger. Maybe I’ll become an old strong bastard but it’s by no means a guarantee that I’ll live longer than my “weak” old neighbor who never lifted weight but still ate healthy food and lead a quiet and healthy life…

The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don’t want, drink what
you don’t like, and do what you’d rather not.
– Mark Twain

[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
Can the earth actually sustain a population that doesn’t age?
[/quote]

  1. Technology has made it possible for us to go from supporting 1 person per square mile in a hunter gatherer society to supporting thousands in that same area in a modern industrial capitalist society – who knows where the limits lie?

  2. There reaches a point in society when the overall quality of life increases so much that people quit having children because they are more productive without them.

More people will wait until their 30’s to have children and some will wait until their 40’s when the technology is available to make it more safe. This is already happening in a certain demographic. The longer we live the longer we should, theoretically, be able to wait to have children.

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/5/1/514ea-longlife.jpg

Seriously, the secret to a long life is to be this guy…

Under eating sucks. Makes me shaky, cold, and irritable. Those people who live by the under-calorie rules look effin’ miserable and weak. That’s not living.